Patterico's Pontifications

10/28/2003

FOR ANYONE CONVINCED THAT TERRI

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:27 pm

FOR ANYONE CONVINCED THAT TERRI SCHIAVO SHOULD BE KILLED: Go to this link and listen to this four-minute interview with Rus Cooper-Dowda. Her doctors once thought she was in a “persistent vegetative state” and stood around her bedside talking about when they were going to kill her — as she listened in horror. She barely managed to convince one nurse, who (acting against orders) documented her ability to respond — contrary to the wishes of her husband.

She is now fully recovered. Oh — and she is divorced.

I have discussed this woman previously in an update at the bottom of this post — but her story packs a bigger wallop if you actually listen to her tell it in her own voice. Anybody who can hear this and shrug it off is as closed-minded as they come.

BOX CUTTERS SHOWING UP ON

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:07 pm

BOX CUTTERS SHOWING UP ON PLANES AGAIN: They have been found on two US Airways flights: one in Philadelphia and another on a commuter plane at Logan Airport in Boston. (Links via Drudge.)

L.A. OBSERVED: Patterico has made

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:06 pm

L.A. OBSERVED: Patterico has made the list of blogs that have a permanent link at L.A. Observed. While I may not always agree with Kevin Roderick, he runs a great site with must-read commentary on the local media. Check out his site today.

TIME TO MAKE A STAND:

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:45 pm

TIME TO MAKE A STAND: So, now that it’s clear that the elite schools in the UC system are violating Proposition 209 (the Angry Clam has more) — what are we going to do about it?

Pacific Legal Foundation? Are you listening? Is anyone there?

GAME THEORY IN REAL LIFE:

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:51 pm

GAME THEORY IN REAL LIFE: Good Lord. How can I get one of these — and more importantly, keep you from getting one? (Via Hit & Run.)

READER REACTION: I have received

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:45 am

READER REACTION: I have received much thoughtful feedback from readers regarding the Schiavo controversy. This case arouses emotions like few other. Many people have been through similar experiences with a loved one, and view the controversy through the prism of their own experience. I have tentative plans to write a piece summing up my feelings on the whole controversy. In the meantime, your feedback:

I have received yet another e-mail from a reader working in state government telling me to ignore the wishes of my reader who is temporarily boycotting the site due to my Schiavo coverage. This reader says: “Let your regular reader continue the boycott. Were it not for you, I would not know this stuff about Beelzebub, er, Michael Schiavo.”

[My reader is, I believe, speaking hyperbolically and/or a bit tongue-in-cheek. Nobody is actually saying Mr. Schiavo is the devil incarnate, okay? So please, do not send me e-mails in response to this post, saying that by printing this reader feedback, I am thereby portraying Mr. Schiavo as the devil. It is true that I have formed a distinctly negative opinion of Mr. Schiavo as I have learned more and more about this controversy. As I have documented on this site, I think there is significant reason to worry about his credibility. But there is a possibility that, as venal and self-centered as he may appear to me, he could be telling the truth about Terri’s wishes. I don’t think he is the devil. My opinion is that he is an incredibly self-absorbed and not very trustworthy person.]

Reader O.C. writes that

most people would not watch a dog starve to death, let alone a person. I don’t care if she is brain dead. To die with dignity is for people who consciously make that choice when they are dying. That is not the case with Terri Schiavo. I also don’t believe that food, via feeding tube or spoon, is “artificial.” It’s just basic.

O.C. goes on to say that if she were Mr. Schiavo, she would look for ways to make Terri’s life the best it can be.

Reader A.M. from Maryland writes a long, thoughtful post. He chooses not to express an opinion on what should happen with Ms. Schiavo, having faced difficult decisions himself with respect to his mother.

Despite his lack of a strong personal view on this controversy, A.M. has been noticing the media bias on the story. He saw a segment on the “Today” show which made plain the view “that State intrusion into this affair was ill-advised and politically driven.”

A.M. also describes hearing part of the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. According to A.M., Rehm says that there should be no discussion of “Michael Schiavo’s conduct, including his live-in relationship and out-of-wedlock child” because (as A.M. characterizes Rehm’s views)

it’s inappropriate to bring this “sub-text” into the discussion, which should stay focused on Terri Schiavo’s medical condition. Host and guests concurred that Michael Schiavo’s conduct is irrelevant, and that, as husband, his role as the guardian of Terri’s wishes and interests must be respected.

A.M. says:

I found this discussion to be a fascinating and disturbing journey into NPR-Upside-Down-Land. I say this as an NPR [financial] contributor, and a pro-choice Democrat (for what it’s worth). For all its moral anguish, the facts as they are known about the husband’s conduct are quite germane, and quite troubling. Mr. Schiavo suffers acute conflicts of interests that the let-Schiavo-die proponents seem unable to recognize. Yet, how can conflicts of interest possibly be construed as a “sub-text” that’s “inappropriate” to consider? The mind boggles.

(Emphasis by Patterico.)

A.M. concludes: “it’s truly a sad spectacle, witnessing people I’d hitherto respected jump with such alacrity into moral and logical swamps of their own making.”

Thank you so much for these thoughtful e-mails. Keep them coming!


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2312 secs.